5 ms·

> So while this might be a problem now, it's correcting itself with time. that assumes that the reasons behind age discrimination/bias are purely based on comp

> So while this might be a problem now, it's correcting itself with time. that assumes that the reasons behind age discrimination/bias are purely based on competence (or lack thereof). I don't see the problem correcting itself when it seems the drivers behind age discrimination are wages and perceived cultural fit (anecdotally more evident in cases where the manager is younger than the candidate)

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I don't see the problem correcting itself when it seems the drivers behind age discrimination are wages This is a situation where it's not age discrimination at all - it's merely a candidate pricing themselves out of the market. Similarly, toomuchtodo suggests that as his life moves forward he'll be less willing to put the work in than his younger peers. That reduces his value. Perhaps a significant chunk of age discrimination is merely workers being unwilling to recognize/acknowledge their actual market worth.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  "Similarly, toomuchtodo suggests that as his life moves forward he'll be less willing to put the work in than his younger peers. That reduces his value." While my value is reduced by not working more hours than I'm paid for, I would argue that government should be stepping in when tech companies are discriminating against workers who would like labor law followed (paid for the hours you work). Why is it okay for workers to be taken advantage of (required to work more hours than they're compensated for) but regulation of employers to protect workers (prohibit) employers from requiring unpaid time) is not? This is not progress. It's theft.
  - cmdrfred 11y ago
    It is estimated that wage theft is the number one property crime in the US.[1] [1]http://priceonomics.com/how-employers-get-out-of-paying-their-workers/ http://priceonomics.com/how-employers-get-out-of-paying-thei...
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      What are your thoughts on ways wage theft could be better monitored and reported?
      - cmdrfred 11y ago
        It seems to me we need a bit more data to discover it. The IRS gets total wages paid but not hours worked. Reporting that should make it harder to hide it at least.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    I'm not paid by the hour. I'm paid to deliver. This is true for most developers - typically we take a salary in return for getting stuff done. Now if you want to lawyer up and demand X hours, $Y pay, rigid adherence to various requirements, etc, that's great for you. But if people are not willing to pay you as much due to the fact that those rigid requirements are a pain, you aren't being discriminated against due to your age. Needless to say I'm opposed to your desire for the government to hobble your competition.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > I'm not paid by the hour. I'm paid to deliver. This is true for most developers - typically we take a salary in return for getting stuff done. If you're a contractor, yes. If you're an employee, no, not at all. > Needless to say I'm opposed to your desire for the government to hobble your competition. Government exists to protect its citizens above profits. Are you insinuating that labor laws should not be enforced? Or that employers should discriminate against employees who want to actually get paid for the time they work?
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Salaried employees are not paid by the hour. They are paid by the week, regardless of how much work they've done. I'm not insinuating anything, I'm explicitly stating that this type of work agreement should not be banned. If you don't like it, demand something hourly. Just don't prevent me from working however I see fit.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > I'm not insinuating anything, I'm explicitly stating that this type of work agreement should not be banned. Unfortunately, evidence has shown that employers are using such rules to take advantage of workers. Therefore, it should be heavily regulated. We disagree, but that's okay. See you in the public policy arena.
      - matwood 11y ago
  - xixi77 11y ago
    If you are an hourly worker, then the government should be stepping in already; but I guess you are not?
- tetraodonpuffer 11y ago
  > it's merely a candidate pricing themselves out of the market the pricing out is not always voluntary, say you are mid-career, you've been working hard, you lucked out with some career choices, you've been getting very good raises due to your performance, now you are paid over the high end for your salary band, which is fine where you are working because you've built up credibility and a solid track record, and it can happen that you are over band when promotions above where you are are tied to politics or company-specific situations (I have been in companies where above a certain level there are only a specified number of position available, meaning if nobody leaves you can't get promoted there) Your company then, sadly, might fold, and you find yourself having to find a new job, you might even have to take a job at a level lower than you were at, which you are completely ok with, because say it is in a different area where you don't have as much experience but where you always wanted to work in but just didn't happen to. It is very likely that you will be passed over for those positions even if you would do great in them because - when you get to the interview you already have the first strike against you because you are applying for a "lower level" position that where you were - when you get to salary discussion you get your second strike, where you will be asked what your previous salary was, which could easily have been 1.5x or even 2x than what you would be offered for this position - odds are that since you haven't been interviewing for a while, or since this position was in an area you were not as familiar with, or you didn't sleep well the previous night, you had a "normal" interview, where you did some things great, and some maybe not-so-great what is the company going to do? go with you, knowing this was a significant pay cut, knowing this was a position level cut, and assuming that due to the above you are not going to be very engaged not to mention you will likely be leaving asap, or would they go for somebody younger, less experienced, where they could give them a 10% bump over their previous salary and so perceive that they would be a lot more passionate for the position? In the end unfortunately if you do well at your job, you end up being promoted, and once you hit, say, senior architect, or distinguished engineer, or principal researcher or whatever, the amount of positions available shrinks dramatically, and there is the perception that once you've been there you wouldn't be as happy or fit for anything less I am not sure how this could be worked around, not when there is a widespread perception that "youth" and "energy" are a lot more important than good old boring experience and been-there-done-that-ness (cue the general infantilization of the workplace) I am hoping that the recent efforts towards making the interviewing process more data-driven (via work-at-home assignments etc.) will pan off, because that might remove some of the barriers, although it does still worry me that in the end you always get to the "cultural fit" interview where you can't be somebody you're not (i.e. younger or less experienced)
toomuchtodo 11y ago
As a 33 year old tech worker, I have specifically accelerated by plans of getting out of tech by my mid 30s due to ageism in the industry (unless I decide to start my own "lifestyle" startup I can live off of). I'm not going to be a good culture fit when I want work/life balance, no more than 40 hours a week of work, not on call 24/7, etc. EDIT: Perhaps I've just been working the wrong gigs. Thanks for the feedback all.
- true_religion 11y ago
  I'm wondering where your job market is located. 40 hours a week, never-on call, isn't really a problem on the East coast (DC/Georgia/Florida) markets. In fact, I'd say the reverse bias is through in DC/VA/Maryland. Small to mid-size employers expect you to have a family, move permanently into the area, and stay with them for 5+ years.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Currently a remote worker for a SFBA startup.
    - NotSammyHagar 11y ago
      come to seattle. dozens of recruiters will bug you on linked in. dozens of big companies have 100-500 openings. no one can hold on to people unless they have good salary, good working conditions.
- jkubicek 11y ago
  I'm a mid-30s tech worker. I've never had problems maintaining a work/life balance across jobs from tiny startups to larger 2000+ person companies. If you do want to stay in tech as you grow older, there are places to go that don't require abandoning your family.
- up_and_up 11y ago
  > no more than 40 hours a week of work, not on call 24/7 I work at a startup in NYC and our culture is like that. Seems like you might want to explore the culture at other companies. There is no reason you need to kill yourself to work in tech. Work/life balance is important at many companies. It leads to longer-term employees, higher morale, better team-work etc (anecdotally speaking as I have worked for companies at all ends of the spectrum).

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I don't see the problem correcting itself when it seems the drivers behind age discrimination are wages This is a situation where it's not age discrimination at all - it's merely a candidate pricing themselves out of the market. Similarly, toomuchtodo suggests that as his life moves forward he'll be less willing to put the work in than his younger peers. That reduces his value. Perhaps a significant chunk of age discrimination is merely workers being unwilling to recognize/acknowledge their actual market worth.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
"Similarly, toomuchtodo suggests that as his life moves forward he'll be less willing to put the work in than his younger peers. That reduces his value." While my value is reduced by not working more hours than I'm paid for, I would argue that government should be stepping in when tech companies are discriminating against workers who would like labor law followed (paid for the hours you work). Why is it okay for workers to be taken advantage of (required to work more hours than they're compensated for) but regulation of employers to protect workers (prohibit) employers from requiring unpaid time) is not? This is not progress. It's theft.
- cmdrfred 11y ago
  It is estimated that wage theft is the number one property crime in the US.[1] [1]http://priceonomics.com/how-employers-get-out-of-paying-their-workers/ http://priceonomics.com/how-employers-get-out-of-paying-thei...
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    What are your thoughts on ways wage theft could be better monitored and reported?
    - cmdrfred 11y ago
      It seems to me we need a bit more data to discover it. The IRS gets total wages paid but not hours worked. Reporting that should make it harder to hide it at least.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  I'm not paid by the hour. I'm paid to deliver. This is true for most developers - typically we take a salary in return for getting stuff done. Now if you want to lawyer up and demand X hours, $Y pay, rigid adherence to various requirements, etc, that's great for you. But if people are not willing to pay you as much due to the fact that those rigid requirements are a pain, you aren't being discriminated against due to your age. Needless to say I'm opposed to your desire for the government to hobble your competition.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > I'm not paid by the hour. I'm paid to deliver. This is true for most developers - typically we take a salary in return for getting stuff done. If you're a contractor, yes. If you're an employee, no, not at all. > Needless to say I'm opposed to your desire for the government to hobble your competition. Government exists to protect its citizens above profits. Are you insinuating that labor laws should not be enforced? Or that employers should discriminate against employees who want to actually get paid for the time they work?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Salaried employees are not paid by the hour. They are paid by the week, regardless of how much work they've done. I'm not insinuating anything, I'm explicitly stating that this type of work agreement should not be banned. If you don't like it, demand something hourly. Just don't prevent me from working however I see fit.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > I'm not insinuating anything, I'm explicitly stating that this type of work agreement should not be banned. Unfortunately, evidence has shown that employers are using such rules to take advantage of workers. Therefore, it should be heavily regulated. We disagree, but that's okay. See you in the public policy arena.
    - matwood 11y ago
- xixi77 11y ago
  If you are an hourly worker, then the government should be stepping in already; but I guess you are not?
tetraodonpuffer 11y ago
> it's merely a candidate pricing themselves out of the market the pricing out is not always voluntary, say you are mid-career, you've been working hard, you lucked out with some career choices, you've been getting very good raises due to your performance, now you are paid over the high end for your salary band, which is fine where you are working because you've built up credibility and a solid track record, and it can happen that you are over band when promotions above where you are are tied to politics or company-specific situations (I have been in companies where above a certain level there are only a specified number of position available, meaning if nobody leaves you can't get promoted there) Your company then, sadly, might fold, and you find yourself having to find a new job, you might even have to take a job at a level lower than you were at, which you are completely ok with, because say it is in a different area where you don't have as much experience but where you always wanted to work in but just didn't happen to. It is very likely that you will be passed over for those positions even if you would do great in them because - when you get to the interview you already have the first strike against you because you are applying for a "lower level" position that where you were - when you get to salary discussion you get your second strike, where you will be asked what your previous salary was, which could easily have been 1.5x or even 2x than what you would be offered for this position - odds are that since you haven't been interviewing for a while, or since this position was in an area you were not as familiar with, or you didn't sleep well the previous night, you had a "normal" interview, where you did some things great, and some maybe not-so-great what is the company going to do? go with you, knowing this was a significant pay cut, knowing this was a position level cut, and assuming that due to the above you are not going to be very engaged not to mention you will likely be leaving asap, or would they go for somebody younger, less experienced, where they could give them a 10% bump over their previous salary and so perceive that they would be a lot more passionate for the position? In the end unfortunately if you do well at your job, you end up being promoted, and once you hit, say, senior architect, or distinguished engineer, or principal researcher or whatever, the amount of positions available shrinks dramatically, and there is the perception that once you've been there you wouldn't be as happy or fit for anything less I am not sure how this could be worked around, not when there is a widespread perception that "youth" and "energy" are a lot more important than good old boring experience and been-there-done-that-ness (cue the general infantilization of the workplace) I am hoping that the recent efforts towards making the interviewing process more data-driven (via work-at-home assignments etc.) will pan off, because that might remove some of the barriers, although it does still worry me that in the end you always get to the "cultural fit" interview where you can't be somebody you're not (i.e. younger or less experienced)

toomuchtodo 11y ago

As a 33 year old tech worker, I have specifically accelerated by plans of getting out of tech by my mid 30s due to ageism in the industry (unless I decide to start my own "lifestyle" startup I can live off of). I'm not going to be a good culture fit when I want work/life balance, no more than 40 hours a week of work, not on call 24/7, etc. EDIT: Perhaps I've just been working the wrong gigs. Thanks for the feedback all.

true_religion 11y ago
I'm wondering where your job market is located. 40 hours a week, never-on call, isn't really a problem on the East coast (DC/Georgia/Florida) markets. In fact, I'd say the reverse bias is through in DC/VA/Maryland. Small to mid-size employers expect you to have a family, move permanently into the area, and stay with them for 5+ years.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Currently a remote worker for a SFBA startup.
  - NotSammyHagar 11y ago
    come to seattle. dozens of recruiters will bug you on linked in. dozens of big companies have 100-500 openings. no one can hold on to people unless they have good salary, good working conditions.
jkubicek 11y ago
I'm a mid-30s tech worker. I've never had problems maintaining a work/life balance across jobs from tiny startups to larger 2000+ person companies. If you do want to stay in tech as you grow older, there are places to go that don't require abandoning your family.
up_and_up 11y ago
> no more than 40 hours a week of work, not on call 24/7 I work at a startup in NYC and our culture is like that. Seems like you might want to explore the culture at other companies. There is no reason you need to kill yourself to work in tech. Work/life balance is important at many companies. It leads to longer-term employees, higher morale, better team-work etc (anecdotally speaking as I have worked for companies at all ends of the spectrum).